Voices for Evolution

TheChuckS thechucks at aol.com
Wed Jun 8 13:31:01 EST 1994

   A better argument against Creationism is not that it is
but that it begs a most important question: Does God exist, and if
what is his nature?  

  It is because of this that Creationism is relatively devoid of
and therefore, on the face of it, useless.

Crreationism also insists on an inferior nature for its own Superior

   Yes, fans, the open minded scientist must consider this question
fair game for objective inquiry. Even Creationism, contrary to the
overwhelming mass of evidence and what is currently understood
to be its most economical interpretation, may eventually be shown to
be, that benchmark of scientific attainment, useful.

  For suppose God to exist. Suppose even that the world was literally
created in seven days 6000 or so years ago, and Creationism is true.
Creationism says nothing about the relationships between species.
     Evolution, and genetics, describe these relationships, and how
develop  over time.
    Creationism does not even tell us how to breed dogs, or peas, and
strict Creationist must compromise his basic postulates to even
allow that it can be done.
   So the Creationist should still study  evolution and genetics,
should still study geology, and mathematics and all, because
they are useful, yes, but because as increasingly detailed
of reality, they constitute man's understanding of, from the
point of view, God's creation.
   And as one may hope to understand an artist through studying his
works, only so may one hope to understand God.
    But here is irony, for Creationism, which elevates God and man,
man above and apart from the animals, and God immeasurably above and
from man, diminishes them both. And science, which lowers man to one
animals, and asks of God evidence, elevates them both.

   For the creation of creationism is a sham thing, a small if divine
without depth, or substance, or permanence. A paper moon above all
the world
the stage, and what then are we to think of God
if this is the best He can do.  How great can He be, if whimsy is the
paltry measure of His creation.

   There is paradox here:More is less. For would not such a God
   rather not be an object of pity, rather than veneration?
   For by retaining absolute power ( and this the Creationists
   also tend to claim ) does He not squeeze the life out of His
   creation? That He alone
   in all of space, in all of eternity, be the only truly living
   surrounded by puppets whose strings He must constantly twitch or,
   at best, mechanical toys, cranked up and released, to clatter
   along the ground until their springs wind down.

   Whereas God, so far as evidenced by science, ( and not all agree
that there is enough such evidence, or even any ) has created a
universe of
durability and substance.

   And too, for the man of the Creationist's God is an inferior
less than the man of science,
doomed forever to second rate status, and if such a man is the best
He can create, then such a God is less than a God such as evidenced 
by science.

   For if God exists, then the goal of God expressed by science
is man come, so far as possible, to an understanding of...
everything and, so far as possible in that which is made manifest,
and bound
by those limitations, an equality with God. Thus, a God which, more
than He desires inferiors and worshipers, wishes equals.  A far more
sensible, far nobler, far more difficult task for God and His
creation than that imagined by the Creationists.

 (IMHO, (as opposed the above, eh?) one of the underlying motives of 
  Creationists is justifying
  the politics of monarchy ( as on earth, so in heaven, etc.) and
  their own role as courtiers to the imputed divine, basking in
  reflected, though as is seen not the greatest possible, glory.)

  Debates on the foundations of things always have legitemacy.  On
other hand, one has justification in complaining about the noise of
spinning wheels.

thechucks at aol.com  ( Charles St. Pierre )

More information about the Bioforum mailing list